Thoughts on the depiction of the Byzantine Empire in the Medieval: Total War games?

I'm doing a project on the depiction of Byzantium in the two Medieval: Total War games - to what extent its accurate, what kind of image of the Empire it portrays - and I'd like to get some general thoughts from other players. Anything in terms of military, names, geography, situation, politics, culture - even the faction colour. All thoughts/opinions are welcome, particularly these strands:

1) Those knowledgeable on the Byzantine Empire can perhaps say what they think is wrong with it - or right with it - and how accurate various elements are. Recommendations for improvements might also be an area of interest.

2) I'd particularly like to know first impressions from those who may never have even heard of the Byzantine Empire before playing the games. What struck you first about them? What sort of impression did you go away with purely from playing the game? Did that change over time? And so forth.

3) How do you think the depiction of Byzantium changed from Medieval to Medieval II, if at all? Did it get worse? Better?

Again, this is mostly based on your impressions just from playing the game, so even if you haven't read anything about Byzantium please feel free to chime in.

1) Byzantium is actually one of the most accurately depicted factions in Medieval: Total War (first one), having its own specialised units and with a particular emphasis on Constantinople (trade is very developed). However there is the feeling of being too general for such a complex faction, and clearly the building options are not really effective in recreating the theme/tagmata system of the Byzantine Empire. I particularly liked the "heroes" of the game and also the historical events which added an academical feel towards playing the Empire, making it one of the most enjoyable campaigns you can ever play in a Total War game.

Recommendations - more specific Byzantine units, building options, more court titles, more historical events and probably specific Byzantine music to get you in the mood.

M2TW is waay too general to be even considered for analysis.

2) Before playing I've known about the Byzantine Empire, but it is actually Medieval Total War that sparked my interest in them, to such a degree that today I want to pursue Byzantine history at university. ~:)

3) It clearly got worse. M2TW is very stereotypical towards the Byzantines, and with almost no specialised units. MTW is clearly the better game, from every aspect except graphics.

Yoohoo, BKB is back.

1 - I'm not knowledgeable with Byzantine history, or at least not enough to give my opinion on this.

2 - Actually, MTW was my second (gaming) experience with the Byzantine Empire, the first being Age of Kings.
What I saw in MTW kind of supported the idea of the Byzantine Empire I got from AoK: military-wise, they rely on specialized unit, often-heavy (Cataphracts, Varagian Guards) and often old-school (according to west european standards, though it might also be described as "easternish" rather than old-school, ie. scale armor, full armored horses, greek fire, and so on).

Oh, and for some reason, they are always purple. Whether it is in AoK, MTW, M2TW or Europa Universalis. There's probably a reason to this, but I can't figure it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Oh, and for some reason, they are always purple. Whether it is in AoK, MTW, M2TW or Europa Universalis. There's probably a reason to this, but I can't figure it out.

---

I think it's simply because it's the color used on maps of the Roman empire after the splitup, western empire is usually green.

The purple is actually quite significant - royal princes were considered to be porphyrogenitoi (or porphyrogenita for princesses)- 'born in the purple' - and purple fabrics were highly prized in Byzantium. In the tenth century Ottonian diplomat Liudprand of Cremona was stopped from taking purple cloth back to Italy for such reasons.

Thanks for the thoughts guys - keep them coming!

If I'm not mistaken. "porphyrogenitoi" actually means "born in red". In Serbian language the word for red is "crveno" and the word "purpur" is another word for red, like red-crimson-scarlet in English. The word "purpur" is similar to "porphyr". Ostrogorsky always translated "porphyrogenitoi" as born in red (serbian - "u purpuru rodjen").

It might be a wrong translation in English. I'm by no means expert on Byzantine Empire, so I might be wrong.

For depiction of Byzantine Empire it Total War games, I'm inclined to agree with edyz. In all fairness, Byzantine Empire was an extremely complex state that changed and reformed a lot. Byzantine Empire from the 11th century is significantly different from Byzantine Empire in the 14th century. It's very hard to portray such complexity and changes within limits of a TW engine. That's why I'd say MTW was quite good depiction of BE, while M2TW's depiction is a blasphemy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I think it's simply because it's the color used on maps of the Roman empire after the splitup, western empire is usually green.

---

My empires were red and blue respectively :-/ I guess the guys who made my high school history books were kind of influenced by the "socialist/conservative" political opposition.

As for the purple, yeah, BKB is probably right, as porphyr is actually the greek for purple. Now that explains it.

In Romanian, purpura means porphyr, and for Ostrogorsky, porphyrogenetoi are the ones who were born in the Imperial bedrooms, which were decorated in purple.

The mods such as Stainless Steel + Basileia ton Rhomaion greatly improve the Byzantine experience in M2TW.

I played MTW MP almost to the complete exclusion of SP, so I can only really speak to the battlefield experience I got from playing the game, as someone who did not know much about the Byzantine Empire before I began playing.

The biggest criticism I can think of is that it did not portray the situation between the Turks and the Byzantines accurately. From what I understand, the Turkish military system was superior to that of the Byzantines, as the Angeloi had let the Empire deteriorate to such a degree. However, in MTW, Byzantine units were far stronger than Turkish ones. In MP, it took a truly skilled player who had mastered both unit control and ranged combat to defeat a competent Byz player. In fact, most considered Byz to be the easiest faction in the game, especially do to Byz Infantry - which were like 100 man Men At Arms units.

Now I'm not sure how much an analysis of the intricacies of the MP system will help you, but my general point is to say that, strictly from the game, one would wonder how the Byzantine Empire fell to the Turks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I played MTW MP almost to the complete exclusion of SP, so I can only really speak to the battlefield experience I got from playing the game, as someone who did not know much about the Byzantine Empire before I began playing.

The biggest criticism I can think of is that it did not portray the situation between the Turks and the Byzantines accurately. From what I understand, the Turkish military system was superior to that of the Byzantines, as the Angeloi had let the Empire deteriorate to such a degree. However, in MTW, Byzantine units were far stronger than Turkish ones. In MP, it took a truly skilled player who had mastered both unit control and ranged combat to defeat a competent Byz player. In fact, most considered Byz to be the easiest faction in the game, especially do to Byz Infantry - which were like 100 man Men At Arms units.

Now I'm not sure how much an analysis of the intricacies of the MP system will help you, but my general point is to say that, strictly from the game, one would wonder how the Byzantine Empire fell to the Turks.

---

In fact the Byz units were suprerior to the Turkish one until the real decline of Byzantium that is XIV century. Even the Angeloi were quite successful in their war against the Turks and stabilised the border. After the fall of Constantinople, the Empire of Nicaea also delivered a crushing defeat on the ambitious of the Seljuk Turks to conquer new lands (the Turkish Sultan was killed in the same battle, the battle of Magnesia).

I have not played MTW2 yet so I can not comment. I can only say that MTW left me with very good feeling. My favourite were of course the Varangian guard and Naphtha Throwers. About the historical accuracy: I think they put the decline of the theme system. The Byz Inf was often quite problematic for me until I learn to use it right. And as you can see, the later you start the game, the more difficult it becomes. Good game, I would say.
---------
Ah, Luidprandt. This Bishop really hated the Byzantines...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Now I'm not sure how much an analysis of the intricacies of the MP system will help you, but my general point is to say that, strictly from the game, one would wonder how the Byzantine Empire fell to the Turks.

---

Well, wars aren't always decided on the battlefield. And M:TW wasn't very good at simulating horse archer warfare, so the Turks were bound to look bad. That said, it's my impression that the Byzantines were their own worst enemy. Byzantine war efforts were quite often sabotaged by real or perceived disloyalty towards the emperor.

In real life, they were. But in MTW, the Emperor is actually very powerful, especially the first ones.

Well they did have a pretty Darwinist-meritocratic approach to imperial succession...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Asen

In fact the Byz units were suprerior to the Turkish one until the real decline of Byzantium that is XIV century.

---

Well that criticism can be turned into a compliment then. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

In real life, they were. But in MTW, the Emperor is actually very powerful, especially the first ones.

---

True. I always find that the Byz Emperor had waaay too much influence in the game, which meant that a) all the other countries wanted to be his friend (the swine would prefer to remain HIS allies when I had a pretty large Empire and all he had was poxy Rhodes and he was invading me!) and b) civil wars would hardly ever happen. Not too mention that most emperors and princes in the game were ludicrously brilliant.

I'm only moderately knowledgeable with Byzantine history, but the Byzantines on MTW are probably my most favorite faction.

While strictly speaking, playing MTW was far from the first time I'd heard of the Byzantine Empire, up until that point I'd only had a passing acquaintance with it. I'd only known the most basic information on the Empire, and wasn't really familiar with the internal problems -- particularly the seemingly near-constant dynastic struggles -- that it suffered. I've since expanded my knowledge somewhat, but I'm still far from being an expert (even by "amateur" standards).

Given that, I felt as if the game did an okay job of portraying the Byz. The centralization of facilities & trade in Constantinople felt about right to me, as did the constant pressure of dealing with threats from both East & West. Although some of the units felt a little over-the-top, their military still felt about right overall.

The biggest problem -- at least from my perspective as someone with a "casual" interest in the ERE -- was that the game didn't (couldn't?) reflect the inherent weakness(es) of the Byzantine political system, and the internal problems Emperors often faced. Playing the Byzantines in MTW, the main impression I got was that they could've easily ruled Europe and the lands surrounding the Mediterranean if their leading citizens hadn't been constantly clawing each other's eyes out in their bid(s) for power/wealth/influence/etc.!


I personally never got around to playing the Byz on my friend's copy of Medieval 2, so I can't really comment per se. However, my friend has complained that they feel a lot more generic in the newer version, and that they're even easier to play than in MTW....which he views as being a bad thing. He -- like myself -- felt that the Byzantines should be more of a challenge than they are.

1) Despite reading a few books, I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to make comments on this issue...

2) All but never heard of them before playing MTW1 (technically probably first heard of them playing AOK2, although they didn't make much of an impressions).

I really enjoyed them in MTW. I didn't know anything about how accurately they were depicted (now, I'd likely say the same as some of the others here, Emperors perhaps have too much authority, etc.) but I loved the unique units, and the increasing difficulty and outdated military as the game progressed.

I'd particularly like to know first impressions from those who may never have even heard of the Byzantine Empire before playing the games. What struck you first about them? What sort of impression did you go away with purely from playing the game? Did that change over time? And so forth.

3) I think the Byzantines became more generic in MTW2. Not so much in number of unique units (where at least many of the other factions are better off than MTW, Byzzies close to the same), but the stats for units in the same roles seems much more standardized. Their starting position is also less unique, as CA seemed to want to balance almost everyone's starting position to be equal.

I'm not sure the Byzantine game is easier compared to other factions than it was in MTW, but MTW2 is easier in general (although an improvement over RTW).

They still remained among my favorite factions in the newer game as well as the old.

I'm not sure if this is still of interest, but I happen to have a focus on Byzantine and Roman history that hasn't already been handled in this thread, so I'd like to take a jab at your first question.

1)I feel that Medieval 2 Total War did, unfortunately, a poor job of displaying the Byzantine(Eastern Roman) Empire. Though they added more in the Crusades campaign, there is still a lot to be desired. The Byzantine Empire was one of the wealthiest empires in the world during its duration. Even during periods of decline, Constantinople itself made more revenue in a day than Western Europe did in a year. Additionally, the Empire was the center of Orthodox Christianity. It was one of the two forces that managed to stop the initial explosion of Arab conquest, France being the other. The Empire had a long urban and legal tradition, making it one of the most populated, most governed by what we consider law, and richest domain in Europe. However, despite their wealth and Roman legacy, they were doomed to decline. Their beginnings of collapse began with massive population migration, same as the Western Roman Empire, except for the Byzantines it was the Seljuks. Though the Seljuks certainly didn't demolish the Empire, they delivered a stinging blow that hampered its ability to recover. Before that time period, they had made real inroads on the Muslims south of Asia Minor. Basil II had successfully pushed south to Acre, just a few days from Jerusalem.

In the game, these important historical points are lost. Though based shortly after the loss at Manzikert, the Empire was still incredibly wealthy; this was especially true during Alexios Komnenos' reign, when I believe both vanilla and Crusades starts. However, Byzantium starts fairly poor. It's units are incredibly expensive, Thessalonika (an important trade hub and the second largest city in the Empire) is a large town, and Constantinople is about as big as an Italian city. In the game, Antioch ends up pulling a greater revenue than Constantinople. The Byzantine capital should start more wealthy and probably larger, being among the most populous cities in the world at the time.

The units are an issue, too. They feel too generic and underwhelming compared to CA's main Western European focus, such as Milan, the HRE, France, and England. Their units are outclassed by units from these armies, and only the vardariotai are their saving grace. Essentially, the Byzantine Empire feels like a generic faction with subpar units. It's like competing with jinetes using desert cavalry.

I would thus beef the units up. Stainless Steel has done a great job making the Byzantines feel more at home historically. However, to balance the faction, I would suggest - honestly - an overhaul of diplomacy and home rule. The Byzantines suffered from dynastic struggle and political games. This should be reflected in the game in anyway possible. Additionally, the Byzantines must be surrounded by more enemies than it can handle. Historically, they faced the Fatimids, the Seljuks, the Normans(Sicilians), the Venetians, the Hungarians, the Bulgarians, the Rus, and African sultanates. The challenges that Eastern Rome faced should be faced by the player, yet equipping them with the majesty and sheer power of Byzantium, namely Constantinople. A good emperor back then could have conquered the world with the sort of wealth an emperor like Anastasius accumulated. The player should face similar opportunity, and failure.

Holy necro...

*too lazy to insert thread-necroing-pic right now*

To be fair, it's not as much of a necro as when Michael VII brought the Byzantines back to Constantinople after about 57 years.

To be fair, that was quite an achievement... even after 57 years of struggle.

To be fair, the re-conquest of Constantinople was prepared by John III Ducas Batatzes. While a capable politician, Michael VIII used the momentum to finish what Batatzes started. Alas, he was too generous with spending money and giving away privileges.

P.S. It seems this necropost awakened my spirit that still has not moved beyond the Org. I think.